pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: "Free: The Future of a Radical Price"  (Read 18735 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #75 on: August 23, 2009, 13:52 »
0
[And what do you think is going to happen when corporate sponsors are paying for ads?

Nothing good, that's for sure.  "Free" only works until the novelty wears off. 


Free only works as long as money lasts. Eventually the people offering the free stuff run out of money to support it and then they beg for money (Ken Rockwell), continue it as a side business (MSG?), start charging for it (Istock), or let it die (take your pick).


« Reply #76 on: September 13, 2009, 13:05 »
0
Yesterday I was browsing this book at a bookstore - and mind you, it costed almost US$30 ;D - and one part caught my atraction. He was discussing Wikipedia vs Britannica and how the free online encyclopedia devalued the high price of a traditional printed encyclopedia.  It's a situation that has a parallel with the microstock vs traditional agencies/photographers conflict.

PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #77 on: September 13, 2009, 13:17 »
0
Printed encyclopedias have been devalued because there are other free offerings like Wikipedia but also because most people these days now expect instant information. Take a second to search online or try digging through a collection of printed encyclopedias.

One day most credible information on the internet will cost something. We're in a transition right now. Companies who don't figure out how to make the transition and also produce the best content will disappear.

Look at all of the newspapers who laughed 10 years ago when anyone said the internet would replace them.


« Reply #78 on: September 13, 2009, 14:47 »
0
I agree it's unthinkable to buy printed encyclopedias these days - I'd rather have a DVD-ROM, and these are also much cheaper now, partially because of the cost of printing in high quality paper and binding in hard covers, but also because they would not sell if very expensive.

Curiously, though, I went to Britannica site and they still sell hard cover prints of the encyclopedia - costing US$1000 and above. 

lisafx

« Reply #79 on: September 14, 2009, 10:07 »
0
Printed encyclopedias have been devalued because there are other free offerings like Wikipedia but also because most people these days now expect instant information. Take a second to search online or try digging through a collection of printed encyclopedias.


Not to mention that printed encyclopedias become obsolete the minute they are printed.

As a kid in around 1970 or 71 my husband had to write a report on Martin Luther King Jr.  He used his parents' 1967 set if encyclopedias, so unfortunately he omitted Dr. King's assassination!

(guess at around 8 years old he wasn't up on current events)

PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #80 on: September 14, 2009, 23:12 »
0
Printed encyclopedias have been devalued because there are other free offerings like Wikipedia but also because most people these days now expect instant information. Take a second to search online or try digging through a collection of printed encyclopedias.


Not to mention that printed encyclopedias become obsolete the minute they are printed.

As a kid in around 1970 or 71 my husband had to write a report on Martin Luther King Jr.  He used his parents' 1967 set if encyclopedias, so unfortunately he omitted Dr. King's assassination!

(guess at around 8 years old he wasn't up on current events)

Yep the good olde days.

Today isn't much different. We now get instant information from Wikipedia, but who creates the entire? Scholars? Teachers? No, Joe and Jane average. So we risk being fed instant misinformation. Britannica and all the rest missed the boat on the transition. So now we have la-la land.

« Reply #81 on: September 15, 2009, 16:14 »
0
Today isn't much different. We now get instant information from Wikipedia, but who creates the entire? Scholars? Teachers? No, Joe and Jane average. So we risk being fed instant misinformation. Britannica and all the rest missed the boat on the transition. So now we have la-la land.

In fact I think they are adjusting, with encyclopedia CDs for US$30 or less, including access to their website for an year. If I had kids on school, I would try that.  I am even considering that even for the fun of it - I always liked encyclopedias.  :)

« Reply #82 on: September 15, 2009, 23:40 »
0
Today isn't much different. We now get instant information from Wikipedia, but who creates the entire? Scholars? Teachers? No, Joe and Jane average. So we risk being fed instant misinformation. Britannica and all the rest missed the boat on the transition. So now we have la-la land.

In fact I think they are adjusting, with encyclopedia CDs for US$30 or less, including access to their website for an year. If I had kids on school, I would try that.  I am even considering that even for the fun of it - I always liked encyclopedias.  :)
I still think that Wikipedia is good enough for everyday use. If i had to work on a scientific paper, I would not rely on the info in Wikipedia. However, to quickly glance through some information, Wikipedia or just a simple internet search works wonders. The risk of misinformation is there, but I think it's low enough that we can take it for convenience sake.

RacePhoto

« Reply #83 on: September 15, 2009, 23:52 »
0
Printed encyclopedias have been devalued because there are other free offerings like Wikipedia but also because most people these days now expect instant information. Take a second to search online or try digging through a collection of printed encyclopedias.


Not to mention that printed encyclopedias become obsolete the minute they are printed.

As a kid in around 1970 or 71 my husband had to write a report on Martin Luther King Jr.  He used his parents' 1967 set if encyclopedias, so unfortunately he omitted Dr. King's assassination!

(guess at around 8 years old he wasn't up on current events)

Yep the good olde days.

Today isn't much different. We now get instant information from Wikipedia, but who creates the entire? Scholars? Teachers? No, Joe and Jane average. So we risk being fed instant misinformation. Britannica and all the rest missed the boat on the transition. So now we have la-la land.

While I agree with you and the above, there's one free resource that I used over the "Cliff Notes" version of information, AKA encyclopedia. Libraries are still free and a great resource for people looking for in depth information and doing even a tiny bit of real research. Whole books on one subject.

Good points about newspapers, which are still trying to make the transition but I think most haven't got a clue and are a little bit late on picking up on how it all works.  ;D

Stock photos have fallen to the simple economics of supply and demand, plus some lively competition. It will all sort out someday, but prices will never be what they used to be before affordable high quality digital cameras. Some still argue that film is better, but then some would argue that a horse and carriage is better than a car.

A bunch of photographers happened to be talking cameras and film at a race last weekend and we were all lamenting the loss of professional camera stores. Soon we won't be able to get our frozen film processed, and they already stopped making most print paper for film. Color labs are gone. Just another effect of the Internet and digital equipment. Need an enlarger or a film processing machine? There are many sitting idle.


PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #84 on: December 27, 2010, 12:13 »
0
[And what do you think is going to happen when corporate sponsors are paying for ads?


Nothing good, that's for sure.  "Free" only works until the novelty wears off. 



Free only works as long as money lasts. Eventually the people offering the free stuff run out of money to support it and then they beg for money (Ken Rockwell), continue it as a side business (MSG?), start charging for it (Istock), or let it die (take your pick).


An old topic but according to Paul Melcher PicApp as a free image service is dead. The model has been changed.

http://blog.melchersystem.com/2010/12/27/moments-later/

« Reply #85 on: December 27, 2010, 14:07 »
0
I've just had a wonderfull read of this older thread.  But really most summizing are just wild guesses. 

The simple thing is that nobody knows where this whole movement will end up.  The only certainty is that change will occur, and the rate of technology advance will ensure that the changes will be massive and probably in unexpected directions.

It has happened for centuries - technonogy changes the world, buit now the pace of change is simply breathtaking. We'd better get used to it though, coz it ain't gunna slow down  - quite the reverse.  And there will always be deniers who have a head-in-sand view of their little part of the world - best revisit the Luddites - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite.

« Reply #86 on: December 28, 2010, 10:07 »
0
The pace of change is indeed breathtaking. It's like someone from the year 1700 standing in front of a speeding truck reasoning that it was impossible to have something moving faster than a horse.

The future of digital photography is so exciting I think I'll stop here and go start another thread about predictions for 2011 and beyond. Come join the fun. And happy new year to all.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
9 Replies
4948 Views
Last post December 12, 2007, 16:56
by araminta
30 Replies
12357 Views
Last post September 30, 2008, 01:03
by RacePhoto
11 Replies
5707 Views
Last post November 09, 2008, 14:48
by litifeta
5 Replies
2344 Views
Last post December 05, 2013, 17:20
by 33ft
13 Replies
3052 Views
Last post November 16, 2017, 04:51
by qunamax

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results